Hank, do you think that it might be possible that much of the debt incurred during the Obama administration was from the lingering effects of policy and actions that Obama inherited and could not possibly change the momentum of in the short term? Three major things that are fueling the deficits are the wars , the economy being in the toilet (less tax revenues) and tax cuts. All inherited from the previous administration.

Disclaimer: I'm really uncomfortable appearing to defend Obama because IMO both parties are loaded with bought and payed for big money corporate whores which makes all this Democrat vs Republican back and forth a huge pile of BS. The real issue that should have all Americans up in arms is the massive corruption in the highest offices of government that includes both parties.

In a perhaps ominous sign for Barack Obama as he seeks re-election next year, today's 12% satisfaction rating is no better than when he took office in January 2009. Satisfaction did rise in the early stages of the Obama administration, to as high as 36% in August 2009, but has since drifted back down.

_________________________
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”-Eric Hoffer

Modern journalism is all about deciding which facts the public shouldn't know because they might reflect badly on Democrats

It never matters when the Republicans do it, and it's going to end the world as we know it when Democrats do it...hell, everything that chorus line of buffoons is lamenting at every Republican debate is something that either they personally, or their party and their party's sycophants, have supported in the past.

It's all about winning, fuk the country, and the rest of us...and the sad part is the 49% of our country that will vote for them anyway because they got the memo that they're supposed to...sad pathetic dupes.

The Republican model of raising the national debt... then screaming about it when a Democratic president comes in to power is all part of strategist Jude Wanniski's "Two Santa Clause" theory.

Quote:

The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[6][7]The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by offering some other appealing options.This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman, that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great).The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused to try to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus.

The ultimate goal was to run the national debt up so high and gin up as much fear as possible over it that a Democratic administration would have no choice but to make drastic cuts to Federal spending. This way the Democrats look more like Scrooge than Santa, and the Republicans get to realize their agenda of destroying the middle class and bringing us a Laissez Faire free-for-all... all while looking like the good guys to the hapless dupes that call themselves conservatives.

The plan appears to be working perfectly too as evidenced by our esteemed right-wing brain trust here on the board.

Again...I know I should stopped by amazed by it, but the fact that half the population will vote for this dumfuks, in direct contradiction to their own self interest, and the interests of their country, is astounding...almost as astounding as not only their continuation votes for those jackasses after they fuckitallup, but that they believe what they see on FauxNews about it all being someone else's fault, whether it be progressives, Democrats, illegal aliens, homosexuals, socialists, protestors, terrorists, environmentalists...

I guess the list would be easier if I just said "anyone who's not either a massively rich white guy, or isn't someone who they have in their pocket"...

Just watch...they can't find a Republican nominee to get behind because they are all terrible candidates, and even Republican voters know it...but the "generic" Republican is neck and neck with Obama.

As soon as one of those terrible candidates...who even Republicans know is terrible, really fuckin terrible...becomes that "generic" Republican, they'll all vote for him even though he's not fit to be anywhere near the White House.